Promise to Marry Remains Enforceable

The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that Ghanaian common law recognises actions for breach of promise to marry. According to the Court, a claimant must establish three essential elements: that a promise to marry existed, that the promise was accepted and acted upon to the claimant's detriment, and that the promisor subsequently refused or failed to fulfil the promise without lawful justification.

In reaching its decision, the Court considered evidence that the appellant had introduced the respondent to his uncle as his fiancée, persuaded her to keep the pregnancy, relocated her to Kumasi, accepted responsibility for their child, and housed both mother and child. These acts, the Court held, were consistent with a genuine promise to marry and supported the trial court's findings.

Importantly, the Court rejected the appellant's reliance on his alleged Ordinance marriage as a defence. It observed that an existing marriage cannot be used as a shield to escape liability where the evidence demonstrates that a person deliberately induced another into believing that marriage would follow. Consequently, the Court upheld the award of GH¢40,000, clarifying that it constituted damages for breach of promise to marry rather than a matrimonial lump-sum payment.

No Gift of the House Was Established

Although the respondent succeeded on the issue of breach of promise to marry, she failed to establish ownership of the disputed property. The Court explained that a valid gift inter vivos requires proof of the donor's intention to make the gift, sufficient publicity surrounding the transfer, and acceptance by the recipient, usually demonstrated through the customary "aseda" or another recognised form of acceptance.

During the proceedings, the respondent gave inconsistent evidence regarding whether any "aseda" had actually been performed, and neither she nor her witnesses produced convincing evidence of the alleged customary acceptance. For that reason, the Court concluded that ownership of the house had never passed to the respondent.

Concubinage Does Not Trigger the Doctrine of Advancement

The Court also addressed the doctrine of advancement, which sometimes creates a presumption that property acquired by one spouse in the name of the other was intended as a gift. According to the Court, that doctrine applies to marital relationships and not to parties merely living together or engaged in a romantic relationship. Since the parties were never married, the respondent could not rely on that presumption to establish ownership of the property.

Compensation for Improvements to the Property

Despite dismissing the property claim, the Court recognised that the respondent had spent substantial sums completing the house with the appellant's knowledge. Evidence showed that she incurred expenses exceeding GH¢25,000, although some receipts had been seized by the police during the dispute.

The Court criticised the conduct of the police, observing that determining civil property disputes falls outside their mandate. It further held that fairness required the respondent to be reimbursed for the money she had invested in improving the appellant's property. Accordingly, it ordered the appellant to refund GH¢25,000 together with interest at the prevailing commercial bank rate from January 2017 until final payment.

Final Orders

Allowing the appeal in part, the Court set aside the High Court's order permitting the respondent to remain indefinitely in the house and removed the injunction preventing the appellant from recovering possession. However, it directed that possession could only be recovered after payment of the GH¢40,000 damages and the GH¢25,000 reimbursement.

The respondent was also granted three months to secure alternative accommodation. The Court further emphasised that these orders did not affect the appellant's continuing legal obligation to provide care and maintenance for the parties' child under the Children's Act.

CLICK HERE TO READ/DOWNLOAD FULL DECISION